On page 6 of the February issue of Trains it states that only Norfolk Southern has a mandatory retirement age of 65 for Vice Presidents and up. Why do they have a mandatory retirement age for administrative staff?
The Fortune 500 firm I worked for (not transportation) had the same rule: Vice Presidents and above had to retire at 65. I think the reasoning, which could be questioned of course, is that at a certain high level, management tends to be self perpetuating and thus there is not the kind of evaluation and supervision by personnel or human resources that those at a lower level undergo routinely. Without mandatory retirement you have to almost be ruthless to avoid having people regard it as a lifetime appointment like being a federal judge or Supreme Court justice (and there have been many many problems there with no institutionalized way to force people out). To avoid someone simply calcifying in a position, you have a hard and fast rule. Otherwise I suspect a Vice President could get pretty bad, even senile, before they are reluctantly pushed out. I have read that the C&NW in the late 1940s and early 1950s was particularly plagued with old executives who simply needed to get out, but there was nobody to kick them out because the people with that power needed to be kicked out too.
Now that does mean that NS may be depriving itself of talent and I suspect they do suffer from time to time. But as a rule, there is always someone else. One of the ironies where I worked was that if someone was generally regarded as losing their touch but had served too long to simply be canned -- they were kicked upstairs and made VP so that the mandatory retirement rule could take care of the problem. In some cases it was almost humiliating
Dave Nelson
Personal observation - today's 65 is yesteryears 50.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
While today's 65 might be yesterday's 50, how many 65s insist on using ideas and methods that have been obsolete since they were 40?
I once read an opinion that no one over 35 has ever made an original contribution to society. Since that was during the, "Don't trust anyone over 30," era, I question it as an absolute evaluation, but I do submit that there's some validity to the idea.
(Just for the record, my 77th is history.)
Chuck
Somedays, I wish the mandatory retirement age for execs was 60, or even 55...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I too worked for a non-transportation company that had a mandatory retirement age for officers and senior managers. Several thoughts: 1. Change is good. New ideas, new perspectives keep an organization fresh; 2. People get very comfortable in their positions over time. Good to shake up the troops; 3. People at the bottom/middle who aspire to the top should have an opportunity to get to the top - not be faced with someone who's been in the position for 30 years; 4. Someone at that level should be financially able to retire at a given retirement age. I personally think that its good for the organization to turn people over at a given time. Fwiw - I'm a retired manager - not of the organization that I worked for originally that had a mandatory retirement age.
Bob
Probably the best way to go is to forget about any mandatory retirement age and simply go with merit. If someone is productive at 65 and wants to keep going then why not let him (her)? Especailly if its a job that poses no safety hazard to others. It is sad to see people being sidelined just because they're deemed too old...
I am retired from a job that had mandatory retirement at 55.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
As has already been mentioned, the question of evaluation of performance comes into play. Normally, one's superiors do the rating, but if you have no superiors, that leaves the folks who are working for you (and whom you may have given their jobs) to rate you. I'm not sure I'm good with the objectiveness of such an approach.
There are ways it could be dealt with. In a corporation like NS, the board could play a part. Or an independent outside source could be used, if the criteria have been determined.
Perhaps that should be part of a contract with such officers - a set of predetermined criteria, agreed upon on taking the position. They would only apply in "friendly" retirements - ie, if they're not being fired because of a change in management. When they meet (or don't, depending on the approach) the criteria for retirement, out they go!
I'm not too worried about these folks being cast out into the street to fend for themselves. Most probably have a healthy retirement plan in place, and sometimes they become "emeritus" officers - maybe even with an office and a desk, but with no formal duties or authority.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Some people can't wait to retire while others want to keep working long after 65. It really should be up to the individual provided he/she poses no safety hazard. I thought age discrimination was illegal anyway.
That's true Tree68.. I'm sure Wick Mooreman will do very well in retirement. But looking at it from a company perspective, a mandatory retirement age means potentially getting rid of people who still have alot to contribute. A guy like Mooreman is at the top of his game for sure or else he would not have attained his position in the first place.
Both John W. Barriger III and Dr. Lewis K. Sillcox worked well into their 70's and 80's respectively - I dare say they made more contributions to the industry after age 65 than I ever will.
Don't really need a mandatory age for senior executives, as long as there's a competent, independent, and tough-minded Board of Directors of the company. Those execs serve at the discretion (whim) of the Board, whose primary function is to decide when it's time for them to leave (the annual meeting, dividend declarations, etc. are merely ministerial/ clerical in nature).
- Paul North.
Mandatory retirement age truly is a double edged sword. On one hand, it allows the corporation to rid itself of under-performing executives but also forces those who are on top of the game out the door and wastes good talent. As has been previously stated, age per-se should not be a factor. Some people are good employees well beyond normal retirement age while others are simply hanging on and hoping for the best while dragging the company down.
U.S. Air traffic controllers are a prime example. They are forced by the federal government to retire at 60. {Age discrimination by those who say it is a no-no?] They lose a lot of prime talent because of that regulation and it's hard to adequately train replacements in a short period of time. There are also controllers who are seriously burned out at that age.
Norm
Ulrich I thought age discrimination was illegal anyway.
I thought age discrimination was illegal anyway.
In this case, it is not.
http://blog.solidcounsel.com/2013/04/24/is-your-companys-mandatory-retirement-policy-breaking-the-law/.
. A mandatory retirement age is allowed for certain executives and high-level policymakers when particular criteria are met. This exception applies to any employee who is:
An "expensive model collector"
Thankfully, NS's 65 year limit was Amtrak's and Conrail's boon. Graham Claytor and Stanley Crane still had some more to give after their time at NS was done.
I kind of doubt Wick is wanting to go all the way to 65. He'll be 62 this year and doesn't seem to be the kind of guy who defines himself by his work. It'll be easier for him to let go than some of the others.
Gee does not the Federal Age Discrmination act kick in for employees over 40. 65 is not old we are talking ex Vietnam era marines here who can kick butt.
I believe any company with mandatory retirement will also make exceptions when they wish to retain an executive beyond that age. Usually it is a fixed term extension but obviously that can be renewed. The decision will be up to the Board of Directors. More often they will be retained on a consultancy contract.
One of the responsibilities of senior executives is succession planning. If there is no qualified person on hand to take over when the big 65 hits they have failed to do their job properly.
John
BtrainBob People at the bottom/middle who aspire to the top should have an opportunity to get to the top - not be faced with someone who's been in the position for 30 years.
People at the bottom/middle who aspire to the top should have an opportunity to get to the top - not be faced with someone who's been in the position for 30 years.
I think this nails it. The future is -- or should be -- always on a company's mind, and that includes younger talent the company hopes will be around to take the reins one day. That younger talent is going to jump ship if the way is blocked by older people who threaten to be around forever.
Also, re. that older talent, remember DeGaulle's observation: "The graveyard is full of indispensable men."
Too... A truly worthwhile retiree can be re-deployed as a independent consultant. My father had to leave as a division manager for a chemical company at age 65 - but was brought in as a consultant on particulaly difficult production issues, and a a general resource and mentor for the new guys. He gradually ramped down his involvement over five years. ==if== everyone is on the same page about who's in charge, it can work well.
Or even be brought back as CEO of another line ... like John Barriger and, most recently, Hunter Harrison.
CatFoodFlambe Too... A truly worthwhile retiree can be re-deployed as a independent consultant. My father had to leave as a division manager for a chemical company at age 65 - but was brought in as a consultant on particulaly difficult production issues, and a a general resource and mentor for the new guys. He gradually ramped down his involvement over five years. ==if== everyone is on the same page about who's in charge, it can work well.
To have a mandatory retirement ages is sort of like flood insurance...You hope you never need it, but when you do it is there. As a couple of Posters have mentioned...There are ways to preserve a knowledge base hld by Senior Execs.
Bring them back as 'Consultants', no official duties, but an ability to make recomendations. The 'Emeritus' position: utilize their experience and ideas. Many operating problems are not new, but somewhat repitious, an experienced insight is always helpful to management experiencing those circumstances for the first time..
Of course, it is up the the individual to accept a mandatory retirement, or to utilize some of the 'escape clauses' if they want to continue to contribute to an industry/organization.
The bigger problem is of course the many who want to retire at 65 but can't due to lack of savings/pension. I talked to a guy today who is 72 and still working. Thanks to a couple of nasty divorces and a fire, he's got no assets to speak of and will probably have to work until he drops. And even sadder for him, he hates his job.
It is very difficult for a CEO to force out VP's, or for a board to force out a CEO, with whom they have worked for years. More so when the individual can't really afford to retire. And you get into favoritism issues without a set policy. If someone is worth bringing back, it's easy enough to bring them back on a short-term contract or as needed.
I retired at 54 from an organization with a mandatory retirement age of 57. Couldn't really afford it, but because of certain characteristics of the job, it was better for both the organization and for me that I go. It worked out in the end, and now I have a no-stress job that was a good fit with my experience.
I will be retiring from my most current job of 20 plus years and a sales career of 43 years this coming fall and if my company had made me a sufficiently attractive offer to leave earlier I would have done so, but due to the high cost of health insurance prior to reaching age 65 I have elected not to retire until age 65. I have grown tired of the travel, pressure, political B.S. and allaround crap of the business world am more than ready to turn the reins over to a younger man or woman in about seven months. I've made more than my fair share of contributions to all of the four companies I've worked for over the years and made them many millions of dollars in profit so I can leave with a proud look back.
Jim (eolafan):Congradulations on your upcoming retirement. I am 59 and like you have made a career in sales. Fortunately for me, the travel has diminished to a fraction of previous levels. Most of my work is from my home as customers really do not want to see salesmen nearly as much as in the past.
My plans are to keep working until the suits either force me out or implement changes which make it less desirable than the postives.
Manadatory retirement does push out talent, but it also opens the doors for many more. There are always other options if a person is not quite ready to hang it up.
Ed
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.